The Libs are at it again!

lowfog01 wrote:So tell me when was the last terrorist attack on US soil? I must have missed it while reading the newspaper coverage of the “war that had no chance of succeeding.” Not! The mainstream media has chosen not to report the war's successes choosing instead to focus on the negative. You have partaken of the Kool aid so much you can’t even admit the obvious. My children were able to sleep safely at night outside the Nation’s capital because Bush had the “balls” to take steps to protect them. That by the way is the only actual power granted the President under the Constitution..

Going to war is an Executive power granted under Constitution? That's funny, because I could have SWORN it was a Congressional power.

And remind me? When exactly did we get attacked by Iraq and Afganistan? 4200 killed and 30,000+ wounded and you call it a success because it didn't happen here? I guess I need a new dictionary.

Let me tell you about my anti-grizzly bear rock I have in my yard. I know it works because I haven't seen any grizzly bears in my yard. Remember this, "Correlation does NOT suggest causation."

That means just because there haven't been any attacks since 9/11, doesn't mean anything we did prevented them. By your logic, there were no terrorist attacks "on US soil" between the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11 so that mean Bill Clinton is responsible for "keeping us safe". Are you ready to say that? Somehow I doubt it.

lowfog01 wrote:Just who do you think had the majority in Congress during the Bush Administration? Remember your high school civics.

I know my high school civics. Just by typing words, you cannot change facts: The Republican Party has had control of Congress for 12 of the last 14 years.....That's a fact! While Democrats took a slim majority in 2006, it wasn't enough to override a Bush veto of any Democratic agenda.

lowfog01 wrote:The President cannot pass any bill. Only the Congress can; they control the whole ball of wax and it was and is run by the Democrats under Pelsoi and Reid.

Not trying to pick on you but you are just flat wrong. Without the 60 Senate votes needed to override a veto & with a Republican in the White House, the Democrats hardly had "control (of the) the whole ball of wax" I suggest learning a bit more civic b4 you take such strong positions.

lowfog01 wrote:Again, the Democrats had and have control of the Congress. They had the power to do something.

The only thing Democrats deserve blame for is not having the guts to cut off funding for the Iraq fiasco, That they could have done but wimped out.

In my lifetime the democrats and the republicans have both had the same puppet masters. The only presidential candidate that I am old enough to have witnessed, that had the interest of the U.S and its people was Ron Paul. All others have been puppets of the world banks.
No matter how they package it, still smells like the same old rat to me. add Obama will be no different.

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:Ultimately, the umpires are us, not the government.

Unless you believe that, every so often (at election time) a group of Space Aliens descends & takes over our government, WE are the government & therefore WE are the umpires, right?
If any election in history proved that We The People can demand change from our government, this last one did.

mikeandgerry wrote:Then I guess you are saying the founding fathers were naive. Equal opportunity was their framework, not equal outcomes.

Not at all naive. They set up a strict series of Checks & Balances to avoid the very excesses of their homeland, England. The last administration did grave damage in preventing these Check & Balances from being allowed to do their Constitutional job.

mikeandgerry wrote:As for your ideas on economics....well, you don't have a clue as to the root cause of our economic woes. The Constitution was violated. The banks were compliant with the laws. It was the laws that weren't compliant with free market economics. The government overstepped its bounds in money and market creation.

Just because YOU believe that to be "The Root Cause" of our economic woes Mike, does not make it so. I believe the root cause was deliberate lack of intelligent government oversight, energy price fixing (which left little money for us to buy/pay for anything else) & downright criminal activity.
Time alone will prove one of us right.

Devil, I actually think we are agreeing on the "umpire" analogy but you are hellbent on arguing.

As for economics, there is no doubt that liberals are "challenged" in their understanding of it as it pertains to the constitution and our republic. You think free markets are unregulated and anarchic. They are not. The Constitution provides the rules and the umpires but the economic outcomes cannot be guaranteed. That is your mistake. There are risks in economies that are real and must be realized from time to time.

I hold all politicians accountable for the current crisis, but the problem is one of pushing markets where they won't go, manipulating markets for political gain, and failing to stop private manipulation. In other words, an abundance of counter-productive rules (some that violate the spirit of the Constitution) and a lack of ethical umpires.

devil wrote:

I believe the root cause was deliberate lack of intelligent government oversight, energy price fixing (which left little money for us to buy/pay for anything else) & downright criminal activity.

I too believe that the government dropped the ball on derivatives oversight, accounting methods oversight, and banking oversight. Both the dems and the pubs screwed up but their screw ups were in support of false economic beliefs that were politically motivated, i.e. that a consumption economy built on deficit spending is beneficial to the people. It is certainly not beneficial in the long run.

Specifically and recently, the errors of congress were the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, the adoption of the Community Reinvestment Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The repeal of Glass-Steagall eliminated the distinctions between financial entities that lead to increased systemic risks through derivative use that were difficult to oversee. The CRA lead to the encouragement of loose lending and loose money creation resulting in a speculative housing bubble and consumption bubble that was destine to crash. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act lead to certain draconian accounting requirements that forced financial institutions of all types to use mark-to-market accounting rules on their financial statements which contributed to the mortgage bubble by pushing securitizations and derivatives to be placed in SPE's (off-books holding companies). That caused ineffective free market evaluation of the underlying company.

Remember devil, the more rules you make, the more you have to comply with. Since ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law; The more expansive the law gets, the more we all become criminals.

There was a time when we needed only one rule. Now we have 1100 page monstrocities that are voted on without the legislators having time to read it.

Devil505 wrote:The only thing Democrats deserve blame for is not having the guts to cut off funding for the Iraq fiasco, That they could have done but wimped out.

LOL

Yeah you are all saints. Just ask YOU.

The democrats have controlled nearly every aspect of this nations governance from FDR until now. They are entrenched in the bureacracy; you are a case in point. That bureacracy works against Republicans from the inside.

The democrats have had the effective control of the media since television began because they are bleeding hearts and can tug the heartstrings of Americans at will without regard to reason.

The Republicans in the last 74 years have NEVER had total control of the government (i.e. the presidency, and super-majorities in the house and senate) . The Dems have had total control three times. Each time, the dems have instituted far reaching socialistic measures that are burying this nation.

When the Republicans have has slim control, the media has lambasted moderate changes by the pubs to the point of villifying the legislators and leadership. That is not effective control.

As far as the Iraq war is concerned, yes, you are correct, the democrats deserve all the blame. But, who do they blame? That is why they are anti-American and basically slimeballs.

Devil505 wrote:

lowfog01 wrote:Just who do you think had the majority in Congress during the Bush Administration? Remember your high school civics.

I know my high school civics. Just by typing words, you cannot change facts: The Republican Party has had control of Congress for 12 of the last 14 years.....That's a fact! While Democrats took a slim majority in 2006, it wasn't enough to override a Bush veto of any Democratic agenda.

lowfog01 wrote:The President cannot pass any bill. Only the Congress can; they control the whole ball of wax and it was and is run by the Democrats under Pelsoi and Reid.

Not trying to pick on you but you are just flat wrong. Without the 60 Senate votes needed to override a veto & with a Republican in the White House, the Democrats hardly had "control (of the) the whole ball of wax" I suggest learning a bit more civic b4 you take such strong positions.

lowfog01 wrote:Again, the Democrats had and have control of the Congress. They had the power to do something.

The only thing Democrats deserve blame for is not having the guts to cut off funding for the Iraq fiasco, That they could have done but wimped out.

Boy, Devil, it sure looks like I hit a nerve. Don’t worry about picking on me. Having spent 16 years in the military I’ve been picked on before and I’m sure I will be again although I’m not sure I agree that you were even picking on me. I think you were just expressing your opinion as is your right. If I didn’t think I couldn't stand the heat I won’t have responded. You and I have vastly different visions of where the country is, how we got there, and what needs to be done to solve the problems facing us. Beating the dead horse isn’t going to change either of our minds. I am choosing not to argue with you not because you are right but because there is nothing to be gained from it. It's obvious that you are not willing to accept the possibility that I may have valid points in our discussion as I have accepted points of yours. That's the real shame here.

mikeandgerry wrote:As far as the Iraq war is concerned, yes, you are correct, the democrats deserve all the blame.

I guess you can say the Democrats deserve all the blame just as I can say that you personally Mike deserve all the blame for the Columbine high school massacre of 1999 in that you had plenty of opportunity to sneak up on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold,( the killers) *& shoot them dead in their beds, well b4 the massacre. I hope you can sleep at night!!

lowfog01 wrote:

Devil505 wrote:

lowfog01 wrote:Just who do you think had the majority in Congress during the Bush Administration? Remember your high school civics.

I know my high school civics. Just by typing words, you cannot change facts: The Republican Party has had control of Congress for 12 of the last 14 years.....That's a fact! While Democrats took a slim majority in 2006, it wasn't enough to override a Bush veto of any Democratic agenda.

lowfog01 wrote:The President cannot pass any bill. Only the Congress can; they control the whole ball of wax and it was and is run by the Democrats under Pelsoi and Reid.

Not trying to pick on you but you are just flat wrong. Without the 60 Senate votes needed to override a veto & with a Republican in the White House, the Democrats hardly had "control (of the) the whole ball of wax" I suggest learning a bit more civic b4 you take such strong positions.

lowfog01 wrote:Again, the Democrats had and have control of the Congress. They had the power to do something.

The only thing Democrats deserve blame for is not having the guts to cut off funding for the Iraq fiasco, That they could have done but wimped out.

Boy, Devil, it sure looks like I hit a nerve. Don’t worry about picking on me. Having spent 16 years in the military I’ve been picked on before and I’m sure I will be again although I’m not sure I agree that you were even picking on me. I think you were just expressing your opinion as is your right. If I didn’t think I couldn't stand the heat I won’t have responded. You and I have vastly different visions of where the country is, how we got there, and what needs to be done to solve the problems facing us. Beating the dead horse isn’t going to change either of our minds. I am choosing not to argue with you not because you are right but because there is nothing to be gained from it. It's obvious that you are not willing to accept the possibility that I may have valid points in our discussion as I have accepted points of yours. That's the real shame here.

I congratulate your spunk in joining the Frey here. I try not to make personal attacks but I admit to sometimes getting.........ENTHUSIASTIC in my posts!
In any case, I have no problem with anyone expressing their own opinions. You are entitled to have your own opinions....but you are not entitled to your own FACTS.
Some of what you stated above you claimed as facts, but they were just flat wrong.

Stay in the fight though.......It's good for the mind & your gender is very poorly represented on this site.

jpete wrote:No. No I don't. I remember hearing Ron Paul talk about it. But no one else. In fact, I heard the Democrats talk about all the money they were going to spend on immigration and health care. I guess they WEREN'T lying after all.

As far as "failed", tell me, when was the last time we had spending cuts of any real substance in this country?

Is it your opinion that if you find yourself in massive debt, that reducing wasteful spending and using your limited income to pay down your debt is the WRONG thing to do?

Still nothing Devil? When you find yourself in debt, is incurring more debt the right path?

Jpete wrote - So tell me when was the last terrorist attack on US soil?

Lowfog wrote - I must have missed it while reading the newspaper coverage of the “war that had no chance of succeeding.” Not! The mainstream media has chosen not to report the war's successes choosing instead to focus on the negative. You have partaken of the Kool aid so much you can’t even admit the obvious. My children were able to sleep safely at night outside the Nation’s capital because Bush had the “balls” to take steps to protect them. That by the way is the only actual power granted the President under the Constitution..[/quote]

You are misinterpreting what I said. I never said Bush had the right to declare war, I said his job as Commander and chief is to use the military to protect the citizens of the US. He did that; he recommended to Congress to take the steps he felt necessary. How convenient of you to just forget that the Democrat Congress approved of going into both Iraq and Afghanistan and funded both operations. I don’t remember anyone ever declaring war but then of course that’s all semantics isn’t. The point is the people responsible for attacking our homeland and murdering over 4000 of our citizens were and to a degree still are being protected in those countries. We have disrupted the world wide terrorist organization and that alone makes us safer.

Jpete wrote - And remind me? When exactly did we get attacked by Iraq and Afghanistan? 4200 killed and 30,000+ wounded and you call it a success because it didn't happen here? I guess I need a new dictionary.

Yep, I do call that a success and if you can’t see it for one I’m even more concerned because that means it could happen here again. Part of the problem is that so far any terrorist operations have been stopped before any America civilian is hurt so there isn’t any big news story. It will be interesting to see just how close we came to other attacks after the information is no longer pertinent to ongoing investigations. In the meantime I say, take the battle to them, let them defend their homeland being used as a terrorist staging ground. Why should I or my kids have to pay the price for their choices?

Who are you quoting here? "Correlation does NOT suggest causation." I’ve heard the quote as “Correlation does not necessarily suggest causation.” But it’s not something that can’t be ruled out. Just from the little information that has been leaked out, there have been several terrorist cells and planned attacks around the world that haven’t happened due to our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, it will be interesting to see how history records this.

Jpete wrote - That means just because there haven't been any attacks since 9/11, doesn't mean anything we did prevented them. By your logic, there were no terrorist attacks "on US soil" between the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11 so that mean Bill Clinton is responsible for "keeping us safe". Are you ready to say that? Somehow I doubt it.[/quote]

You are overlooking several cases that did occur in that time period. The Millennium bomber who was picked up in Seattle for one, the Cole bombing is another. The Clinton Administration got lucky and history will show it. Bill Clinton’s approach to what is now known as the terrorist issue was a joke. It is directly responsible for the deaths on 9/11 and the USS Cole and a number of Embassy bombings. I also know that his administration did everything possible to put obstacles in the way of uncovering and stopping terrorist attacks on the US Mainland. We as a nation got lucky. I pray our luck continues.

jpete wrote:Still nothing Devil? When you find yourself in debt, is incurring more debt the right path?

I'll have to defer to the economic experts of both the Republican (under Bush & Paulson) & Democratic (under Obama) who both advocated huge spending plans but who (Republicans) now are trying to back away from for strictly partisan political reasons. What happened to Country First?

...this has been a great read!!

lowfog01 wrote:My children were able to sleep safely at night outside the Nation’s capital because Bush had the “balls” to take steps to protect them.

Glad to see you still in there pitching Lisa .......but let me ask you one serious question:

Since it is a fact the GW Bush was warned by our CIA in August of 2001, that Al Qieda was planning a major attack on us, within the U.S. & the fact that FBI headquarters was alerted by suspicious FBI Agents who were contacted by flight schools (out west) that Arab males were paying large sums of CASH to learn how to control airliners IN FLIGHT...(no take-offs or landings)......& the fact that GW Bush (after the CIA warning in August.......protected your kids by taking the rest of the month (prior to the 9/11 attack) on vacation...Do you feel GW Bush bares any responsibility for not averting the 9/11 attack?

lowfog01 wrote: You are misinterpreting what I said. I never said Bush had the right to declare war, I said his job as Commander and chief is to use the military to protect the citizens of the US. He did that; he recommended to Congress to take the steps he felt necessary. How convenient of you to just forget that the Democrat Congress approved of going into both Iraq and Afghanistan and funded both operations. I don’t remember anyone ever declaring war but then of course that’s all semantics isn’t. The point is the people responsible for attacking our homeland and murdering over 4000 of our citizens were and to a degree still are being protected in those countries. We have disrupted the world wide terrorist organization and that alone makes us safer.

If the Constitution represents "semantics" to you, then you'd fit right in down in D.C. Always looking for an end run around the law.

lowfog01 wrote: Yep, I do call that a success and if you can’t see it for one I’m even more concerned because that means it could happen here again. Part of the problem is that so far any terrorist operations have been stopped before any America civilian is hurt so there isn’t any big news story. It will be interesting to see just how close we came to other attacks after the information is no longer pertinent to ongoing investigations. In the meantime I say, take the battle to them, let them defend their homeland being used as a terrorist staging ground. Why should I or my kids have to pay the price for their choices?

When did Iraq and Afganistan attack us? Simply question really. I missed it. As far as it happening again, why wouldn't they just walk over the border? Simple enough. And GWB was more concerned about imprisoning Border Patrol agents than people sneaking in the country. If you think taking your shoes off at the airport makes us safe, then I am even more concerned.

lowfog01 wrote: You are overlooking several cases that did occur in that time period. The Millennium bomber who was picked up in Seattle for one, the Cole bombing is another. The Clinton Administration got lucky and history will show it. Bill Clinton’s approach to what is now known as the terrorist issue was a joke. It is directly responsible for the deaths on 9/11 and the USS Cole and a number of Embassy bombings. I also know that his administration did everything possible to put obstacles in the way of uncovering and stopping terrorist attacks on the US Mainland. We as a nation got lucky. I pray our luck continues.

Oh, so Clinton got lucky but GWB was at the tip of the spear on terrorist attack prevention? Laughable. He was out cutting brush during his permanent vacation.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote: What happened to Country First?

That guy didn't win.

And I didn't ask about the a$$holes in D.C. I'm asking about you. Do YOU think it's a good idea to incur more debt when you are drowning in debt.